Re: swallow vs. nighingale

>
> >> The subject here is birds names. Because they are words with
> >> unclear word-formation structure as a rule, this is why there is
> >> so much irregularities in their development.
>
> > Why is their formation unclear, as opposed to the non-birdsnames
> > of the same languages, if they are not loans?
>
> Birds name are, as a rule, "simple" (for example, in discussed terms
> for "swallow" you cannot find the word-formation base in Latin, in
> Greek, in English, and finally in Polish ("jasko'l/ka") as well.

A nasty case of definition-sliding. First you claim that bird names
are of "unclear word-formation structure", ie composite (since
otherwise there'd be no word-formation structure), then, when asked
why this is so, you claim that the opposite is the case, namely that
they are simple, ie. non-composite.

> But there is a mistake in your question: that (some, most of) birds
> names are unclear, does not mean that all other terms are clear and
> that there is any opposition here.

Erh, what?? When did I claim that all other terms are clear?

> That is why I have mentioned also "ore" and "sulphur" in my post.

You mentioned them because not all other terms are clear and there is
no opposition??

> >> As for me, there is nothing strange in it.
>
> > And to me, there is nothing strange in borrowing from a substrate
> > language.
>
> But you are right! There is nothing strange in it, or precisely
> speaking, there would be nothing strange, if you could prove that
> these terms CANNOT be inherited. The best way would be to show an
> attested source of the borrowing. Presence of fleeting a- itself
> proves nothing.

The impossibility of deriving a common protolanguage form for
similar-sounding and similar-meaning terms in a language family using
those rules with which protolanguage forms can be found for the rest
of the voculary of the language family traditionally leads linguists
to assume that those similar-sounding and similar-meaning terms have
an origin which is extraneous to the language family, ie that they are
loans. Not that they are capable of proving it.

> Just let's be consequent. Italian term for swallow is róndine. We
> believe that it has developped from Latin hirundinem which regularly
> should yield **eróndine. What happened to the initial *e-? Should we
> believe that "róndine" a substrate word because it lost the initial
> vowel?

In general, a single irregularity doesn't lead to the assumption that
it's a loan. But several irregularities together do.

> Once again, we (as if) should believe that, let's say Latin merula
> and Germanic *amVsla are borrowings because of the unstable a-.

No, because of the multiple irregularies of <Amsel> ~ <ouzel> ~
<merula> ~ <mwyalch>.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/19248

> Of course, we should, but only if we believe that also Old French
> aronde and Italian rondine are borrowings! (Borrowings mean no Latin
> source.) Just because of the unstable a-.

That particular unstable a- is more likely caused by false division:
l'arondine/la rondine; cf Eng. adder, Germ. Natter.

> >> And, as a consequence,
>
> > As a consequence of your claim the bird names are prone to being
> > irregular you see nothing strange in them being irregular?
>
> Yes, I see nothing strange in it.

You deftly redefined my question. I didn't ask whether you saw nothing
strange in bird names being irregular, I asked whether your not seeing
anything strange in that was caused by your claim that bird names are
irregular. Hello-o?

> Why Polish term for "skylark" is "skowronek" while Russian
> "z^avoronok"? Should I suppose that they are borrowings from
> substrate (which substrate, by the way?) only because this
> highly irregular equivalents "sko-" ~ "z^a-"?

Yes you should, if you want to follow the practice of most linguists.
And yes, from a probably unknown substrate.

> A short "leap aside", if you please. I perfectly know that this is a
> list on IE, not Nostratic, but I only want to show several examples
> of irregular development of initial groups which is the subject
> here. This irregular development is documented well in Altaic, and
> especially in Mongolian. Only some examples:

> u ~ 0: Mongolian usu - Turkish su (< sub) "water" (cf. also Buriat
> dialectal (so: Mongolian) hub ~ sub "river..." (adjective))
> g ~ 0: Mongolian guc^ "30", gurban "3" - Turkish üç "3"
> b ~ 0: Mongolian ulaan "light red" - Russian borrowed (from
> unidentified source) bulanyj "light red"
> ö ~ 0: Buriat ödör "day" - dialectal dör
> ü ~ 0: Buriat üsöön "scarce in number" - Mongolian cöön (the same)
> etc.
>
> There exist much more such examples. Naturally such disappearings of
> initial sounds are not regular in any of cited languages.

Why 'naturally'?

> They only happen in some, particular words, and - to tell the truth
> - their reason is unknown.

Russian bulany is borrowed from an unidentified source (language), and
we shouldn't introduce unknown languages? Nice.

> This is not the right place to discuss it in details, and I do not
> want to do it.

This is exactly the place to discuss it, if you want to use it as
evidence.

> But the question is simple: should we believe that Mongolians and
> Turks borrowed words for "water" from "water substrate"?

PIE *akWa- "water" is believed by some to be a loan, for structural
reasons. Your argument is probably that simple terms won't be
borrowed, but you overlook as a candidate the process by which
specialized terms become generally used, then generalized, eg. from,
say, "managed water" to "water".

> I believe that this is not the simplest solution.

If it's not even that, why did you pick it?

> And the same I believe that Italian rondine (yes, let's go back to
> our IE-an yard) is not borrowed from substrate but developped
> irregularly from Latin hirundinem.

It's a free world. You can choose to believe anything you want.

> The same reason causes that I cannot just believe that Latin merula
> and Gmc. amVsl- are borrowings (which does NOT mean that I reject
> such a possibility!).

You can't believe it, but you won't reject the possibility? This gets
mysteriouser and mysteriouser.

> >> I see virtually no reason to suppose that "a bird language", a
> >> postulated source for many bird names in western Indo-European
> >> languages, ever existed.
>
> > Obviously you don't.
>
> No evidence = no reason. Irregularities are no evidence, as you can
> see now (I hope).

Irregularities makes most people prefer the simpler option that the
word is a loan, instead of proposing separate rules for separate
semantic areas of the language, as I've given up hope you'd ever realise.

> >> Of course it might have existed - but we could not prove it then.
> >> The observed irregularities are too weak evidence,
>
> > But you just ruled out the irregularities as evidence by claiming
> > they were caused by something else? How can you then consider
> > using them as evidence?
>
> They are not evidence. Exactly! Irregularities are not evidence, so
> only because of their presence no one should believe in borrowings
> from substrate.

Do you ever read what you write? Hello-o? Are they weak evidence (thus
evidence) or no evidence?

> >> and they all may be due to development of inherited vocabulary,
>
> > Which is especially irregular for birds' names?
>
> No. I did not say so. Even from my post you may have learnt that
> names for "ore" and for "sulphur" developped, or may have developped
> irregularly.

I already knew that, thank you. I was the one who brought Schrijver's
'language of bird names' into the disussion in the first place. So
I'll repeat the question, amended: Is it especially irregular for
birds' names and the word for ore and sulphur?

> >> or due to borrowing wandering words from various sources.
>
> > So the birds' names are either regularly irregular, or borrowed
> > from several sources, but under no circumstances borrowed from
> > just one language, because we can't prove that?
>
> I didn't say so either, it's only your wrong interpretation.

That's exactly what you said.

> I repeat: the presence of irregularities (like the fleeting initial
> a-, like l ~ r, like dw ~ nd etc.) is not evidence of borrowing of
> anything.

No one said it was. But with irregularities borrowing is the
assumption which is 1) traditional 2) least stressful to credibility.

> No evidence that a thing exists does not mean evidence that this
> thing does not exist. I thought it is obvious for everyone. And you,
> are not you convinced?

Why makes you think I would doubt that triviality?


Torsten